ADVERTISEMENT

The right to privacy

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Apr 17, 2012
17,669
6,136
113
Looks like it's only a short while before we are thrust back into a theocratic society that disallows things like gay marriage, contraceptives, etc... today is a dark day in American History.

I distinctly recall in 2016 getting in an argument with some person upset that Bernie didn't get the Democratic nod. I tried to tell him that the supreme court picks were the really important reason why withholding your vote was really a vote for Trump and a vote for conservative anti-privacy law and an undoing of the protections given to people via a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment over the past 60+ years. Looks like I was correct, unfortunately.

"Libertarians" and "Democratic Socialists" alike should be ashamed of themselves for allowing events to take place leading to Roe being overturned and the similar rulings that are going to follow (and were already mentioned as targets in the proposed Roe ruling)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: URedskin54
Theres a thing called a Constitutional Amendment. Get one approved and this decision becomes irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenCaneKC
Don’t forget McConnell’s hypocritical manipulation of the Senate’s refusal to vote on Garland and rush to vote on Barrett plus the debasement of women evident in Kavanaugh‘s review. The states most aggressively anti-Roe are unfortunately the ones with the lowest level of support for mothers, particularly poor ones. They will need to step up their game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA
So if Biden holds a public rally a few blocks away from the SC offices and tells the atendees that they need to go march down to that branch and show strength to get them to reconsider their flawed decision… it’s all okay right? /s
 
So if Biden holds a public rally a few blocks away from the SC offices and tells the atendees that they need to go march down to that branch and show strength to get them to reconsider their flawed decision… it’s all okay right? /s
They’re already down there trying to do just that :). The leaker saw to that.
 
They’re already down there trying to do just that :). The leaker saw to that.
So the anticipated reclamation of the House and Senate by the Republican...er Nazi party, is going to be put on hold. My guess is these midterms will see the highest voter turnout ever.

Another question, now that it has been confirmed that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and ACB all lied during their confirmation hearings when asked about Roe v Wade (and all said it's settled SCOTUS precedent), who has the balls to get them impeached and removed.

And Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have both expressed disappointment with the leak and the opinion. I guess in 8 months we'll figure out if the US is an actual democracy or just one on paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
And listen, the new SCOTUS justices are not basing their opinions on new information that was presented that could possibly call Roe into question. In order to understand the Roe opinion, you have to read the majority opinion and what the medical evidence provided as that was what provided the foundation for the opinion (I believe the majority opinion was 7-2 and the GOP had a majority on the court then as well). It will be interesting to see what laws hold greater value than the "right to privacy" the Roe opinion cited is guaranteed by the 14th amendment (and from state intervention and restriction) and the 9th amendment giving the right to the people for those rights not granted to the Federal Gov't. Both go against the traditional GOP conservative platform of limited government infringement and regulation. And the opinion also smacks of dissolving the 1st amendment of the government not establishing a state religion or freedom thereof. With that you can kiss gay marriage goodbye, states will start establishing evangelicalism as a state religion and barring others they deem unworthy because they don't worship Jesus, etc.
 
Can you link where people have been charged with killing guards? Hell…link where people were charged with killing one guard?
Semantics. At least one capitol police officer was killed during the insurrection. (I think another one died later from injuries sustained). Just because no one has been charged with murder doesn't mean some of the insurrectionists killed a guard with their actions. You know the burden of proof needed to charge someone and they're not going to charge 1000 insurrectionists with murder/accessory to murder just in hopes one of them turns on the guy they know did it.
 
Semantics. At least one capitol police officer was killed during the insurrection. (I think another one died later from injuries sustained). Just because no one has been charged with murder doesn't mean some of the insurrectionists killed a guard with their actions. You know the burden of proof needed to charge someone and they're not going to charge 1000 insurrectionists with murder/accessory to murder just in hopes one of them turns on the guy they know did it.
Any charged with a lessor offense like manslaughter? If you’re directly responsible for someone’s death charges are filed. I haven’t followed whether any lessor charges were filed so I honestly don’t know the answer to my question.
 
Any charged with a lessor offense like manslaughter? If you’re directly responsible for someone’s death charges are filed.
Again, just because no one has been charged doesn't mean anyone wasn't killed as a result of their actions. If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise? Your argument is saying because it no one heard a noise did it really fall?
 
Any charged with a lessor offense like manslaughter? If you’re directly responsible for someone’s death charges are filed. I haven’t followed whether any lessor charges were filed so I honestly don’t know the answer to my question.
Just because a charge has not been brought does not mean a crime (even a homicide) was not committed.

Also, can you explain the copious number of police officers who just so happened to die on the day of and the days following the event? How common is it for 4+ police young officers from the Capitol police to die within a couple days of each other. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but it does warrant some suspicion.
 
Just because a charge has not been brought does not mean a crime (even a homicide) was not committed.

Also, can you explain the copious number of police officers who just so happened to die on the day of and the days following the event? How common is it for 4+ police young officers from the Capitol police to die within a couple days of each other. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but it does warrant some suspicion.
I’m saying that this event has been investigated as much as any single event I can recall. From the local level to the FBI. Additionally, there are cameras everywhere. It is highly doubtful if there were people directly responsible for the death of others there would be zero charges. Especially considering the resources and surveillance brought to bear in this matter. There is simply zero direct evidence to support your assertion.

….and don’t take any of my comments as anyway supporting what happened on 1-6 or Trump.
 
Last edited:
I’m saying that this event has been investigated as much as any single event I can recall. From the local level to the FBI. Additionally, there are cameras everywhere. It is highly doubtful if there were people directly responsible for the death of others there would be zero charges. Especially considering the resources and surveillance brought to bear in this matter. There is simply zero direct evidence to support your assertion.

….and don’t take any of my comments as anyway supporting what happened on 1-6 or Trump.
The coroner’s recommendation being all that prosecutors have to go on is the problem there. It is hard to say that a suicide or a heart attack is specifically related to an event with surety. But what we can say is that it would be unbelievably coincidental that such a number of officers just so happened to parish in a short period after the events of that day from maladies commonly associated with traumatic stress (suicides, strokes, etc…) and to still assume that there is absolutely no causation from the event to those deaths. I mean… even if we say they weren’t all related, it would be hard to presume that all 4 were completely unrelated.

By the way, excusing or trying to minimize / explain away the ramifications (those being real, theoretical attempted, and philosophical) of Jan 6th as well as separating Trump from culpability is exactly the kind of social support that encouraged the event in the first place… so it’s tantamount to supporting Trump his follower’s flawed political ideology.
 
Last edited:
The coroner’s recommendation being all that prosecutors have to go on is the problem there. It is hard to say that a suicide or a heart attack is specifically related to an event with surety.

By the way, excusing or trying to minimize / explain away the ramifications (those being real, theoretical attempted, and philosophical) of Jan 6th as well as separating Trump from culpability is exactly the kind of social support that encouraged the event in the first place… so it’s tantamount to supporting Trump his follower’s flawed political ideology.
Other than the security cameras everywhere and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses including other police officers, I suppose you have a point :).

There is no get out of jail card if you attack someone with a heart condition and they suffer a heart attack and die during the assault or as a result thereof. You are still deemed responsible for said death.

The only one who has brought Trump into this discussion is you my friend. I disclaimed support for him or 1-6 in response.
 
Last edited:
People attempting to diminish the importance of January 6 should review this video first.

 
Last edited:
Other than the security cameras everywhere and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses including other police officers, I suppose you have a point :).

There is no get out of jail card if you attack someone with a heart condition and they suffer a heart attack and die during the assault or as a result thereof. You are still deemed responsible for said death.

The only one who has brought Trump into this discussion is you my friend. I disclaimed support for him or 1-6 in response.
We have video of one of the cops receiving a metal pole to the face, telling his fellow officer that he wasn’t alright ipon being asked, going to the doctor a few days later complaining of the results on his mental state, concussion like symptoms, then coming back to the doctor a few days later complaining about the same issue and associated physical pain (the 15th) and committing suicide that evening.

The evidence may not be enough to convict based on the necessary burden of proof, but it also is substantial enough to not dismiss the fact that there is a distinct likelihood that the events of that day were a major cause in that death. Especially when you combine it with the nature of the event as well as the peculiarity of the number of other healthy officers who also parishes under stress / trauma related circumstances.
 
Have my doubts that opinion comes to pass, but it would be a great day for the voiceless
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane
I’m saying that this event has been investigated as much as any single event I can recall. From the local level to the FBI. Additionally, there are cameras everywhere. It is highly doubtful if there were people directly responsible for the death of others there would be zero charges. Especially considering the resources and surveillance brought to bear in this matter. There is simply zero direct evidence to support your assertion.

….and don’t take any of my comments as anyway supporting what happened on 1-6 or Trump.

Finally a decision based on the Constitution. This decission was all about the tenth ammendment. It just moved the athority for abortions from the federal gov back to the states.
Not based on the Constitution considering it removed rights from actual people who actually had the rights bestowed upon them by the Constitution. There's a reason why the 9th Amendment comes before the 10th and the 9th specifically gives rights not covered by the Constitution and federal law to the citizens. So are you saying that States' should have more authority than the actual citizenry? Also the amount of hypocrisy coming out of the mouths of GOP/Nazi politicians right now is astounding. Watching commercials for Lahmeyer who proudly claims the endorsement of a convicted felon (Flynn) and Nathan Dahm (Rand Paul) claiming their "Constitutional conservatism" . Then on top of it their obtuse claims of limited government and proudly proclaiming their anti-mask mandate and vaccine stances while supporting extremely intrusive and restrictive laws against women. My wife is pissed. She has always been moderate and tended to vote Republican in elections but that is gone with Trump and now this. She takes the ruling as meaning that she is less valued and has less rights in some states...states like Oklahoma, that don't feel that she as a grown woman can make her own decisions about what is best for her. And if you think this decision is just about abortion laws...then you are extremely shallow and dim. This will extend to marriage rights and even allowing states to roll back things like school segregation, allow places like OK, MS, AL to restrict interracial marriages, etc. By striking down Roe, SCOTUS is essentially saying the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn't apply if a state says it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
Have my doubts that opinion comes to pass, but it would be a great day for the voiceless
Again, I'm not happy particularly of the ramifications of the Roe or Casey decisions themselves being overturned but the much bigger problem is that Alito in his argument goes after Obergfell V. Hodges (Gay Marriage in 2015) and that spells trouble for any and all decisions that used the right to privacy and the 14th amendment as a justification.

That means among other things, we're looking at overturning

Gay Marriage (Obergfell V. Hodges 2015),
Protection Against Sodomy Laws (Lawrence V. Texas 2003) ,
Protection for Access to Birth Control (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965), Protection Against Interracial Marriage Laws (Loving V. Virginia 1967),
Protection Against Illegal Search and Seizure (Mapp v. Ohio 1963),

I personally know that my wife is partially ethnically Hispanic, and her parents are of mixed race. If Alito is going after myself or my family by his interpretation (even unintentionally), then we have a serious issue. I have had many friends and acquaintances in my life who were gay and I want them to be able to be married in whichever manner they please. I want access to Birth Control for myself and my loved ones. I don't want illegally obtained evidence to be used against me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU83 and watu05
Again, I'm not happy particularly of the ramifications of the Roe or Casey decisions themselves being overturned but the much bigger problem is that Alito in his argument goes after Obergfell V. Hodges (Gay Marriage in 2015) and that spells trouble for any and all decisions that used the right to privacy and the 14th amendment as a justification.

That means among other things, we're looking at overturning

Gay Marriage (Obergfell V. Hodges 2015),
Protection Against Sodomy Laws (Lawrence V. Texas 2003) ,
Protection for Access to Birth Control (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965), Protection Against Interracial Marriage Laws (Loving V. Virginia 1967),
Protection Against Illegal Search and Seizure (Mapp v. Ohio 1963),

I personally know that my wife is partially ethnically Hispanic, and her parents are of mixed race. If Alito is going after myself or my family by his interpretation (even unintentionally), then we have a serious issue. I have had many friends and acquaintances in my life who were gay and I want them to be able to be married in whichever manner they please. I want access to Birth Control for myself and my loved ones. I don't want illegally obtained evidence to be used against me.
I'm not particularly concerned that the last two will be an issue. The first three likely will be tho.
 
That means among other things, we're looking at overturning

Gay Marriage (Obergfell V. Hodges 2015),
Protection Against Sodomy Laws (Lawrence V. Texas 2003) ,
Protection for Access to Birth Control (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965), Protection Against Interracial Marriage Laws (Loving V. Virginia 1967),
Protection Against Illegal Search and Seizure (Mapp v. Ohio 1963),
For Republicans to claim to back the rights of the individual, less intrusive government, and the sanctity of the Constitution, this decision and January 6 scream hypocrisy. Or as one lady recently put it, "It's government by pale, Yale, male and stale."

Meanwhile things that really count for the whole world are being ignored.
 
Again, I'm not happy particularly of the ramifications of the Roe or Casey decisions themselves being overturned but the much bigger problem is that Alito in his argument goes after Obergfell V. Hodges (Gay Marriage in 2015) and that spells trouble for any and all decisions that used the right to privacy and the 14th amendment as a justification.

That means among other things, we're looking at overturning

Gay Marriage (Obergfell V. Hodges 2015),
Protection Against Sodomy Laws (Lawrence V. Texas 2003) ,
Protection for Access to Birth Control (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965), Protection Against Interracial Marriage Laws (Loving V. Virginia 1967),
Protection Against Illegal Search and Seizure (Mapp v. Ohio 1963),

I personally know that my wife is partially ethnically Hispanic, and her parents are of mixed race. If Alito is going after myself or my family by his interpretation (even unintentionally), then we have a serious issue. I have had many friends and acquaintances in my life who were gay and I want them to be able to be married in whichever manner they please. I want access to Birth Control for myself and my loved ones. I don't want illegally obtained evidence to be used against me.
Literally none of that is going to happen.
 
Literally none of that is going to happen.
I wouldn't be so sure about the gay marriage thing being absolutely gutted with this ruling. Alito is basically saying the equal protection clause shouldn't matter if a state wants to pass a law banning this or that.
 
For Republicans to claim to back the rights of the individual, less intrusive government, and the sanctity of the Constitution, this decision and January 6 scream hypocrisy. Or as one lady recently put it, "It's government by pale, Yale, male and stale."

Meanwhile things that really count for the whole world are being ignored.
Dang.. if only we just had one party that controlled our elections, our press, our education, and our economy... our world would be so much better with those benevolent overlords.
 
1. Roe being overturned doesn’t make abortion illegal anywhere. It just returns that decision to the States to regulate. States can decide how they want to regulate/criminalize abortion. (Yet somehow people claim this is “anti-democratic”??)

2. Alito specifically goes out of his way in to opinion to say that this ruling is only concerned with abortion, not anything else.

3. Aside from the moral questions involved, Roe was a horrible legal decision from the beginning.

4. Saying abortion is just a “personal decision” ignores the countervailing interests of the right to life for the human life in the womb.

5. Anyone who seriously thinks Republicans want to ban inter-racial marriage has been drinking the BlueAnon kool-aid. That is nowhere close to reality. Clarence Thomas’ wife is white. Mitch McConnell’s wife is Taiwanese. Do Democrats actually believe that line? Or is it just fear-mongering to try to stir up people who don’t know better?

6. Human life begins at conception. If you are arguing that the mother has an overriding interest that allows her to unilaterally end that life (rape, incest, life-threatening health issues for the mom), you need to make the case based on those terms. Pro-abortion arguments that attempt to dehumanize the life inside the womb are scientifically and morally flawed. (Is it alive? If not, what is it? - Is it human? If not, what is it? - Is it innocent? If not, what did it do wrong? - Does abortion intentionally end its innocent, human life? If not, what does it do?)
 
The abortion discussions on here always leave zero room for nuance so I’m not really interested in that, but the notion that Clarence Thomas is going to allow the ban of interracial marriage (or even that it will come before the court again) is hilarious. Then again, with how his wife has embarrassed him recently….who knows…maybe he’ll reconsider
 
Literally none of that is going to happen.
All of those cases were decided using similar or the same interpretation as the one that Alito and his Cabal intent on overturning. If you think that people won't immediately bring new cases dealing with those same issues to the court, then you are dead wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
The abortion discussions on here always leave zero room for nuance so I’m not really interested in that, but the notion that Clarence Thomas is going to allow the ban of interracial marriage (or even that it will come before the court again) is hilarious. Then again, with how his wife has embarrassed him recently….who knows…maybe he’ll reconsider
You're right. It might not come in front of him... it just might come in front of the next nominee who the Republican party steals a seat for.
 
1. Roe being overturned doesn’t make abortion illegal anywhere. It just returns that decision to the States to regulate. States can decide how they want to regulate/criminalize abortion. (Yet somehow people claim this is “anti-democratic”??) This decision should not be a states rights issue, as it's covered by the 14th amendment.

2. Alito specifically goes out of his way in to opinion to say that this ruling is only concerned with abortion, not anything else . This means nothing. Judges who are willing to lie (or misinform) about their intents and beliefs to get onto the bench will lie in their jurisprudence just as easily and reverse course as they see fit.

3. Aside from the moral questions involved, Roe was a horrible legal decision from the beginning.

4. Saying abortion is just a “personal decision” ignores the countervailing interests of the right to life for the human life in the womb. You have to interpret the lifeform in the womb as being inherently human, and that's not a settled interpretation.

5. Anyone who seriously thinks Republicans want to ban inter-racial marriage has been drinking the BlueAnon kool-aid. That is nowhere close to reality. Clarence Thomas’ wife is white. Mitch McConnell’s wife is Taiwanese. Do Democrats actually believe that line? Or is it just fear-mongering to try to stir up people who don’t know better? The point is, that the only thing guaranteeing that protection is the 14 amendment and the same interpretation as Roe. What's to say Thomas and McConnell won't 'throw that decision to the states' just like they did with Roe? It might not effect them if only WV tries to ban interfacial marriage.

6. Human life begins at conception. If you are arguing that the mother has an overriding interest that allows her to unilaterally end that life (rape, incest, life-threatening health issues for the mom), you need to make the case based on those terms. Pro-abortion arguments that attempt to dehumanize the life inside the womb are scientifically and morally flawed. (Is it alive? If not, what is it? - Is it human? If not, what is it? - Is it innocent? If not, what did it do wrong? - Does abortion intentionally end its innocent, human life? If not, what does it do?) No. It does not.
 
By all means continue to hyperventilate but I can confidently say there will be no states attempting to ban interracial marriage. It’s absurd to pretend that there will be. Wouldn’t put it past some rando state rep to try to put forth something dumb, but every state legislature would soundly reject such an attempt.
 
Came here to discuss the need for reasonable federal legislation preserving abortion rights and then read predictions of states banning interracial marriage. Only on the crossfire board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and bigdad48
By all means continue to hyperventilate but I can confidently say there will be no states attempting to ban interracial marriage. It’s absurd to pretend that there will be. Wouldn’t put it past some rando state rep to try to put forth something dumb, but every state legislature would soundly reject such an attempt.
It could be used to remove sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination, access, etc. If it is not a right, then why should it be protected? Just as in this decision, the attack will start seeking limitations, especially from the Christian far right. Alito's use of so called "historical precedent" opens the door to norms of the 1700's being used as a standard for what is acceptable regardless of decades or centuries of legal precedent.

Apparently the concept of 'settled law' and precedent meant zip when to Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch when they met with senators to assure them of their allegiance to it. My guess is they will claim that the senators didn't understand that settled law and adherence to precedent somehow do not apply to Constitutional issues. IOW stupid female Senators should have known better.

And they should known...that they were being played.

The other victim here is SCOTUS itself. Who will view it as a non-political and principled?
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT